fastdude
Active Member
Obviously this is like comparing apples to oranges, but the Cyberpower Infinity Game Cube.
Actually, the Mac Mini is smaller. But the game cube is more powerful, and it's mini-itx.
The Hate On Apple Thread
- Thread starter dave1701
- Start date
Obviously this is like comparing apples to oranges, but the Cyberpower Infinity Game Cube.
Actually, the Mac Mini is smaller. But the game cube is more powerful, and it's mini-itx.
Ethan3.14159
Active Member
That is massive. Probably 3x the size of the Mac Mini. You're right, though. Apples and oranges.
tlarkin
VIP Member
what does that thing cost?
brian
VIP Member
Yeah I did know those sizes existed but nothing the size of the mini. I mean yeah it is more powerful but for the size of a mini, it makes a great server that can just be moved around easily and takes up so little space.
But if i wanted something powerful, yes i would go to that size..
Just saying that for the size its a good box.
tlarkin
VIP Member
diduknowthat
formerly liuliuboy
The closest to mac mini sized PCs are the bareboned booksize ones you buy off of newegg. Zotac makes a few that runs low powered processors and such. The specifications don't even come close.
Twist86
Active Member
I dunno I love their monitors. I bought some 22'' refurbs for $120 a year or so ago and its been fantastic for the price.
fastdude
Active Member
Yeah. Also maybe some nettops have similar dimensions. But, as you said, less power
Quiltface
Active Member
Well I can't comment on their monitors... im sure they are fine.
Method9
Member
I sold my old PPC iMac G4 last year after owning it for about 7. It was great for what I needed--something for her. She is highly computer illiterate and needed something maintenance free to surf the Internet, use iTunes, and watch Youtube. Right about when she started getting messages that flash support was to be dropped for that OS I decided to sell it while I could still get something for it. 7 years is a pretty good run but I did not replace it with another Mac. She's pretty happy on an Acer Netbook w/Windows 7 now. And then there's the $180 versus I think $1300 I paid for it in 2004.
awildgoose
Active Member
That's true. As in I know the Aussie government uses windows for everything.
You know the UAV predators and stuff you see in movies and games?
Windows. No internet source, just a buddy in the RAAF told me.
Also, the family business do computers for mostly medical centers, almost all of Mid to south QLD (state I live in) and North NSW (State below us) and none of the software can run on a mac.
Not sure if this is on topic or not, but just saying macs can't do everything.
Although I am sure there are special stuff windows can't do.
It's that expensive because it's stainless steel...oooh! Seriously, I admit they got good technologies, like the Mac mini...but they ruin it by not being able to open it to upgrade.
Macbook Pros have that auto backlight feature...that I believe a few laptops do have.
Imacs are all in one powerful machines...who's specs are way below these Gateway all-in-one PCs...and Gateway has touchscreen.
They say it's faster...well, it is, because they build their software around their specific hardware they used, unlike Windows, that has to support all kinds of things all over the planet. Windows can be more complicated, but oh boy can it do a lot.
Macbook Pros have that auto backlight feature...that I believe a few laptops do have.
Imacs are all in one powerful machines...who's specs are way below these Gateway all-in-one PCs...and Gateway has touchscreen.
They say it's faster...well, it is, because they build their software around their specific hardware they used, unlike Windows, that has to support all kinds of things all over the planet. Windows can be more complicated, but oh boy can it do a lot.
tlarkin
VIP Member
A Mac is a tool, and a PC is also a tool, and both of them can pretty much do the exact same thing. Really on a basic level it comes down to preference. On a technical level most people don't know the differences, even computer hobbyist on both sides of the elitist spectrum.
There is nothing a PC can do that a Mac can't and vice versa. Even gaming is becoming a smaller and smaller gap with steam releasing a Mac versions and developers porting games.
The only time it matters is when you get application specific. Want to run Adobe, it runs on both. Video Toaster is Windows only, and Final Cut is Mac only. Even Auto CAD can now be ran on a Mac.
In a few more years there may be no more software differences at all, since tons of developers are now making software for the Mac. Remember, one doesn't have to fail for the other to succeed. Also, with them gaining market share maybe it will force MS to write a decent OS for once.
I wish..
Well, Microsoft actually is trying to have a PC turn on and Windows would come on instantly (About Windows "8").
However, I need more coffee, because Macs and multimedia, video and audio editing, it's their department.
But you've said it...a Mac is a tool, and a PC is a tool. In the overall, it really does depend to the consumer's end. Does he/she prefer using a Mac, or a PC with Windows or a PC with Linux?
Yes, Steam actually came on Mac, but not all games are ported as of yet, and a lot of games still got with DirectX. PCs are also unique to their look, and I don't really like Stainless steel...but that's my own opinions.
I don't like Apple's products, but I do lift my hat to them for these crazy technologies and battery efficient devices.
@Phyz: No OS is perfect, remember that. One thing MS should learn is that rushing an operating system is not a good idea...proved by Windows Vista. Windows ME was a totally different situation I believe.
However, I need more coffee, because Macs and multimedia, video and audio editing, it's their department.
But you've said it...a Mac is a tool, and a PC is a tool. In the overall, it really does depend to the consumer's end. Does he/she prefer using a Mac, or a PC with Windows or a PC with Linux?
Yes, Steam actually came on Mac, but not all games are ported as of yet, and a lot of games still got with DirectX. PCs are also unique to their look, and I don't really like Stainless steel...but that's my own opinions.
I don't like Apple's products, but I do lift my hat to them for these crazy technologies and battery efficient devices.
@Phyz: No OS is perfect, remember that. One thing MS should learn is that rushing an operating system is not a good idea...proved by Windows Vista. Windows ME was a totally different situation I believe.
speedyink
VIP Member
I strongly agree.
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
Of course no OS is perfect. Nothing with technology will ever be perfect because if it reaches that level, then we can stop building everything at once. That is why new software and hardware come out, because they improve over time.
However, by design Windows, on paper is the worst OS coded that is out this day. The whole Internet runs off of Unix based servers, as well as all the servers that run DNS world wide. There are zero viruses for any and all Unix based OSes in the wild (this includes Linux and OS X), that is because by design Unix is a far superior OS when it comes to security. It is also superior when it comes to design.
You don't have the "bloat," with Unix based OSes like you do Windows. This is because you can compile an OS from the kernel up to build what you want it to do. It is very modular. Where as Microsoft Windows has very all or nothing monolithic approach. You get all of it, including all the legacy code, the bloated registry, and the OS itself allows kernel hooks so APIs and things like drivers can get direct access to a kernel with out authentication, which is a huge security risk.
I could go on and on how Unix (and all Unix based OSes) allow for developers to use sockets for multiple processes a certain application may need to run, and set one to run as root so the developer can control what escalated access goes where, unlike Windows. Most people don't care about these differences and they will always come back to say things like I can run my DX 11 video card in Windows. So, that is why I won't delve into this too much.
Sadly also, Open GL is far more powerful and robust than Direct X, but developers use DX because it is easier. If all games were just coded in Open GL to begin with you could easily port them to any OS you wanted to.
However, by design Windows, on paper is the worst OS coded that is out this day. The whole Internet runs off of Unix based servers, as well as all the servers that run DNS world wide. There are zero viruses for any and all Unix based OSes in the wild (this includes Linux and OS X), that is because by design Unix is a far superior OS when it comes to security. It is also superior when it comes to design.
You don't have the "bloat," with Unix based OSes like you do Windows. This is because you can compile an OS from the kernel up to build what you want it to do. It is very modular. Where as Microsoft Windows has very all or nothing monolithic approach. You get all of it, including all the legacy code, the bloated registry, and the OS itself allows kernel hooks so APIs and things like drivers can get direct access to a kernel with out authentication, which is a huge security risk.
I could go on and on how Unix (and all Unix based OSes) allow for developers to use sockets for multiple processes a certain application may need to run, and set one to run as root so the developer can control what escalated access goes where, unlike Windows. Most people don't care about these differences and they will always come back to say things like I can run my DX 11 video card in Windows. So, that is why I won't delve into this too much.
Sadly also, Open GL is far more powerful and robust than Direct X, but developers use DX because it is easier. If all games were just coded in Open GL to begin with you could easily port them to any OS you wanted to.
speedyink
VIP Member
I love reading your posts, I learn so much.
Let me rephrase that..no OS is anywhere NEAR perfect. There are many things that piss me off on OSX, Windows, and Linux. And I f***ing hate it when people say things like macs never crash or "it just works". Because all of that is a straight up lie. Back in the days of XP and Tiger..they both crashed and ran into problems considerably often. OSX though is too basic for it's own good. Maybe not technologically, but visually and in options. The options that are easily available are pathetic. For example, lack of any DPI options, or closing lid options on laptops. It also sucks that you're really only supposed to use it on macs, which I can never justify purchasing new. Windows...while your easy to use and customize, I could really do without about half the crap you include on the install. Yes, it looks pretty, and has more options, but it can be very needy. Linux..You're way too user unfriendly to get setup. Once it's set up it's great, but It's an absolute chore to install it on 3 computers with totally different components. I can't get all of the hardware working on one let alone all three.
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
I just upgraded my HTPC to Ubuntu 10.10 last night. Only got about 20 minutes of playing with it so far, but the new interface face lift is nice. Smooth, fast and responsive and it looks good. Reminds me of a Mac to be honest. You may want to give the new Ubuntu a try in a virtual machine or something.
What exactly are you looking for on closing laptop lid options? Like keep the wifi on if you close the lid?
Quiltface
Active Member
I found U 10.10 to be rather laggy in comparison to the prior release... 10.04?
And I forget the guys name (creator of ubuntu) built ubuntu with mac in mind. Like menu styles and interface etc...